Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bendix Control Division’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2002
2 district · 12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Land US v. Dollar · 66 Ill. App. 3d 789 - Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Leonard Storch Enterprises, Inc. · 96 Ill. App. 3d 243 - Kutner v. DeMassa · 51 Ill. App. 3d 296 - Braband v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who ... does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from: (1) the transaction of any business within this state; ... (3) the commission of a tortious act within this state; ... B. Service of process may be made upon any person subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State under this section by personally serving the summons upon the defendant outside this State and such service has the same force and effect as though service had been personally made within this State. C. Only causes of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which jurisdiction is based upon this section.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In reviewing challenges to jurisdiction under our state’s long-arm statute, two levels of analysis are necessary. First, the court must determine whether plaintiff has alleged an event in New Mexico, see Section 38-1-16, so as to subject defendant to that statute. Secondly, if the threshold requirements have been met, the court must determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is consistent with the requirements of due process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.